Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) HR 1022

The Democrats are back in power and their anti-gun wing is trying to
make up for lost time as far as gun control legislation is concerned.
There are a number of bills that have been introduced already, but
GOA will be there to meet every challenge.

Right now, we need your help in beating back a reintroduction of the
so-called “assault weapons ban,” the infamous bill that outlawed many
types of firearms based primarily on cosmetics, misinformation and
scare tactics.

The bill is HR 1022, and last month it was introduced by the Queen of
Gun Control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Its 30 cosponsors
comprise a list of the usual anti-gun suspects — so we need to make
sure that no pro-gun congressmen are duped into signing their names
onto this anti-gun piece of trash.

McCarthy entitled her bill the Assault Weapons Ban and Law
Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, knowing these firearms aren’t
“assault weapons” and knowing the bill she is reintroducing does
nothing to prevent violent crime — since the guns in question have
seldom been used in crime.

McCarthy’s bill would reinstate all of the now defunct provisions
related to semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines. The
manufacture and/or importation of many firearms would be prohibited.
This would be paired with a strong ban on the possession or transfer
of detachable magazines having moderate or larger capacities.

Truth be told, HR 1022 is the old ban on steroids. Fourteen more
guns are listed by name than in the ’94 ban, and only one “dangerous”
feature, such as a pistol grip, is needed to make a “nice” gun into a
“bad” gun. The old ban required two “dangerous” features, such as a
pistol grip and a folding stock. This distinction effectively
expands the scope of the bill to ban a far broader variety of
firearms.

Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the
previous “assault weapons” ban did absolutely nothing to stop violent
crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd
Amendment rights of gun owners.

More than 10 years ago, the anti-gun lobby and their friends in the
media began waging a campaign to frighten people and convince them
that the so-called “assault weapons” are rapid fire machine guns
when, in reality, they are merely semi-automatic firearms that look
different than traditional hunting rifles.

This bill is designed to cripple the firearms industry while
infringing on the rights of all gun owners. It is proof positive
that the rabid, anti-gun members of Congress really don’t care about
stopping crime or saving lives — they just want to take our guns
away.

What are the odds of this bill getting through the Congress? Who
knows? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just gave Rep. Jefferson a seat on
the Homeland Security Panel. Jefferson was the guy who had $90,000
dollars of bribe money stuffed into his freezer.

If the liberals now in control of the Democrat Party feel they are
strong enough to get away with that kind of outrage, they may feel
they can get away with passing a gun ban that does nothing but punish
law-abiding gun owners.

We must take seriously every anti-gun bill introduced in this
Congress. But, at the same time, this bill is an opportunity to beat
up those members of Congress who hate guns and will stop at nothing
to eliminate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

If we can give them a good thrashing on HR 1022, we may be able to
discourage them from bringing forth more bills like this. And that
is why we need your help in beating down HR 1022 quickly, and making
sure that none of the good guys get suckered into supporting this.

ACTION: Please use the pre-written letter below to direct your
comments to your Congressman. And circulate this alert to your
pro-gun friends and family.

The U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban isn’t the only recent court ruling to recognize Second Amendment rights. In a recent New Jersey case, a judge also found that the amendment protected the rights of a would-be gun buyer.

In this case, the local police denied the plaintiff a “firearm purchaser identification card” required by state law. The police argued he wasn’t eligible for the card, because he’d once owned guns that had been seized and not returned as a result of a domestic incident. The plaintiff pointed out that he had agreed not to have the guns returned, and that the law blocking new purchases based on past seizures wasn’t passed until three years after the incident.

In its February 27 decision, the Warren County Superior Court found that the police had violated the idea of “fundamental fairness.” Because the law didn’t exist at the time of the incident, the plaintiff couldn’t have intended to give up “his right to bear arms as provided by the [Second Amendment].” As in the D.C. case, the story is far from over, because the state plans to appeal.

COLORADO

Assault on Right-to-Carry Permits Heading to Colorado House Floor!Senate Bill 34, sponsored by State Senator John Morse (D-11), passed the House Judiciary Committee today and is on its way to the House floor for a vote.SB34, if enacted, non-resident carry permits will no longer be honored if the address on the holder’s identification is different than the state where the permit was issued.Please contact your State Representative TODAY at (303) 866-2904, or if outside of Denver, at (800) 811-7647 and respectfully urge him or her to oppose SB34.

Gun Tax Advancing in Colorado Senate!Senate Bill 109, sponsored by State Senator Ron Tupa (D-18), seeks to increase the fee assessed for the instant criminal background check conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation prior to the transfer of a firearm.SB109 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee.Please contact your State Senator today at (303) 866-2316 and respectfully urge him or her to oppose this legislation.

Colorado Anti-Gun Legislation One Step Closer to Passage!House Bill 1174, sponsored by State Representative Al White (R-57), is scheduled to be heard in the State Senate in the coming days. House Bill 1174 would repeal the sunset review of the law enforcement database of carry permit holders.Please contact your State Senator today at (303) 866-2316 and respectfully urge him or her to oppose this legislation.

8 Responses to “Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) HR 1022”

We watched the section on 60 minutes concerning the control of weapons in the hands of the mentally deficient. it is our belief that this is necessary to the welfare of all. We think we have a solution to the concerns of the mental health community…When a patient is diagnosed as mentally ill the physcian only need to note that it is imparitive to place this person in question on the DO NOT SELL WEAPONS

We watched the section on 60 minutes concerning the control of weapons in the hands of the mentally deficient. it is our belief that this is necessary to the welfare of all. We think we have a solution to the concerns of the mental health community…When a patient is diagnosed as mentally ill the physcian only need to note that it is imparitive to place this person in question on the DO NOT SELL WEAPONS list no need for medical prognosis nor diagnosis. Just the say so of a licensed physician…

Thank you for the commentary. The problem, as I see it with your proposal; Is that patient confidentiality laws would run smack into such proposals. I certainly do not see that as an insurmountable problem though. Protections could also be placed so that the system would/could not be abused.

Hitler, and others as well. It was common practice in the old Soviet Union to declare someone mentally deficient, and then act in accordance with the current dictates.
I am in complete agreement with Steve and Barbara, for example. As long as the criteria is that the person is a clear and present danger to himself, or others, and that there is a real provision that would allow for restoration of the persons rights at another date. Unlike the weapons ban on people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, where, while there is a built in mechanism, it has always been non – funded by Congress. Effectively then, it is a lifetime ban, for less than felonious behavior.

However, please note that I am not in agreement with other reasons for denying people their rights based upon mental defect. Why> Because it would be all to easy to declare a person unfit simply because they do not agree with the status quo, in other words, since you disagree, you must be crazy to the point of being a danger to society.

It looks as though it hasn’t gone away, just being incorporated into other bills. Time will tell but it seems that a lot of Democrats are throwing obama and that ilk under the bus when it comes to these kind of laws.